Watford Grammar Objection
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
I'm sure she knows the score. I thought it reflected badly on those objectors more than anything else.watttyg wrote:WP - do you think it would help Dr Passmore if the inaccuracies from the objectors were pointed out ? I am assuming that she will have the actual facts and figures anyway.
For me the most significant pieces of news from the meeting were the LEA's support and the lack of discussion of the same-school sibling criterion. I agree that the schools' side had the better presentation at the meeting, but doubt that the meeting will be very important in Dr Passmore's deliberations. After all, most of what was said was predictable once you knew the situation of each speaker.
I was just reading through recent decision for DAO (ADA/001269 - see http://www.schoolsadjudicator.gov.uk/up ... 20Owen.doc). Now I am more concerned...
DAO's oversubscription criteria is somewhat similar to WGSB's and the adjudicator seriously considered the legality of the use of sibling criteria alongside partial selection. Apparently partial selection of more than 10% alongside a sibling rule goes against the School's Admissions Code. Though goverment guidance is that schools should not do this, those that have done so in the past can continue to do so provided local children are not disadvantaged. DAO have a similar category to WGSB where 22 places are reserved for children who live closest. Interestingly the adjudicator did not see this as valid way to avoid disadvantaging local children.
Having said this the adjudicator did not amend the sibling criteria - but that was due to lack of objections and that while DAO contravened the code it had maintained its spirit in the broadest sense.
Not sure when the decision for Watford's Grammar School's is due but must be soon? WP have you heard anything?
It appears that
DAO's oversubscription criteria is somewhat similar to WGSB's and the adjudicator seriously considered the legality of the use of sibling criteria alongside partial selection. Apparently partial selection of more than 10% alongside a sibling rule goes against the School's Admissions Code. Though goverment guidance is that schools should not do this, those that have done so in the past can continue to do so provided local children are not disadvantaged. DAO have a similar category to WGSB where 22 places are reserved for children who live closest. Interestingly the adjudicator did not see this as valid way to avoid disadvantaging local children.
Having said this the adjudicator did not amend the sibling criteria - but that was due to lack of objections and that while DAO contravened the code it had maintained its spirit in the broadest sense.
Not sure when the decision for Watford's Grammar School's is due but must be soon? WP have you heard anything?
It appears that
This adjudicator was the bearded chap manning the sign-in sheet at the public meeting. I think he went a bit far in his statement of the government's intentions. As a result of the compromise after the campaign to save the sibling criterion, this part of the Code is vague and contradictory. He chose one interpretation, but ministerial statements at the time could support the view that the sibling criterion should only be examined if it were objected to (which it wasn't in the DAO case.)Stig wrote:I was just reading through recent decision for DAO (ADA/001269 - see http://www.schoolsadjudicator.gov.uk/up ... 20Owen.doc). Now I am more concerned...
DAO's oversubscription criteria is somewhat similar to WGSB's and the adjudicator seriously considered the legality of the use of sibling criteria alongside partial selection. Apparently partial selection of more than 10% alongside a sibling rule goes against the School's Admissions Code. Though goverment guidance is that schools should not do this, those that have done so in the past can continue to do so provided local children are not disadvantaged. DAO have a similar category to WGSB where 22 places are reserved for children who live closest. Interestingly the adjudicator did not see this as valid way to avoid disadvantaging local children.
Having said this the adjudicator did not amend the sibling criteria - but that was due to lack of objections and that while DAO contravened the code it had maintained its spirit in the broadest sense.
Note that 22 places for DAO is 10%, the same proximity reservation as for the WGs, Parmiter's, Ricky and Queens', though all but Queens' now admit about twice that on distance since they had their selective proportion cut.
Also, the DAO case touched on the same-school sibling criterion; the cross-sibling criterion has no support in the Code at all.
No, I'm just checking the adjudicator's site like you are. It has to be soon, with the open evenings already starting and forms due in 5 weeks.Stig wrote:Not sure when the decision for Watford's Grammar School's is due but must be soon? WP have you heard anything?
Thanks WP - I think I now agree with your view that the X-sibling rule is threatened but that the main sibling rule is probably safe.
I was interested to see this statement at the bottom of the Herts Admissions page for objections to admissions:
"For many parents such as those applying under the community school sibling rule the objections have no relevance."
(http://www.hertsdirect.org/scholearn/ad ... s/osa0910/)
As WGSB is a voluntary-aided school I guess this comforting statement doesn't apply!
I was interested to see this statement at the bottom of the Herts Admissions page for objections to admissions:
"For many parents such as those applying under the community school sibling rule the objections have no relevance."
(http://www.hertsdirect.org/scholearn/ad ... s/osa0910/)
As WGSB is a voluntary-aided school I guess this comforting statement doesn't apply!
And yet at the same time as we wait for this adjudication, there is one going on in Hemel where parents are complaining that admissions based on distance discriminate against them !
I also think the X-sibling rule is threatened, according to the LEA, it is a finely balanced judgement. So I guess it could go either way ..
If it goes against the X-siblings, and those already in the schools at Sept 08 are not protected (which I suspect will be the case) I fully intend to write to Jim Knight and the current minister asking whether they can help in any way.
I appreciate that the code itself may not specifically mention cross siblings in the ruling regarding that protection, however Jim Knight's intention seemed very clear. Though I expect in this world which seems full of government u-turns the promises made by one minster will matter very little.
Does anyone else have any views on this ?
I also think the X-sibling rule is threatened, according to the LEA, it is a finely balanced judgement. So I guess it could go either way ..
If it goes against the X-siblings, and those already in the schools at Sept 08 are not protected (which I suspect will be the case) I fully intend to write to Jim Knight and the current minister asking whether they can help in any way.
I appreciate that the code itself may not specifically mention cross siblings in the ruling regarding that protection, however Jim Knight's intention seemed very clear. Though I expect in this world which seems full of government u-turns the promises made by one minster will matter very little.
Does anyone else have any views on this ?
Claire Ward, too. But I think the whole point of the setup with the admissions code and adjudicators is to distance the government from these contentious decisions. To quote the Hemel Hempstead MP in the committee debate on the code:watttyg wrote:If it goes against the X-siblings, and those already in the schools at Sept 08 are not protected (which I suspect will be the case) I fully intend to write to Jim Knight and the current minister asking whether they can help in any way.
My hon. Friend raised a very important point about the adjudicator, who is not responsible to anyone apart from the Minister. The adjudicator will make the decision and take all the flak in public for it, but there is no appeals procedure against him. As long as he does the Minister’s work, everybody will be happy. That is the way the code reads. I see the Minister nodding; he is probably right.
Thanks WP, that is interesting.
So if the Minister in question has made a public statement such as
"for existing parents and children already in the system, we want to make sure that they are protected from any change to the sibling criteria for brothers and sisters that the schools might apply"
and the adjudicator is meant to be doing his work, she should be bound by his promise of protection ?
I wrote to Claire Ward, prior to the public meeting (unfortunately she was unable to attend) asking her specifically for clarification regarding this protection and the situation with x-siblings. She replied quoting the code, so I guess she believes this covers the situation.
So if the Minister in question has made a public statement such as
"for existing parents and children already in the system, we want to make sure that they are protected from any change to the sibling criteria for brothers and sisters that the schools might apply"
and the adjudicator is meant to be doing his work, she should be bound by his promise of protection ?
I wrote to Claire Ward, prior to the public meeting (unfortunately she was unable to attend) asking her specifically for clarification regarding this protection and the situation with x-siblings. She replied quoting the code, so I guess she believes this covers the situation.
The prescribed procedure for overturning an adjudicator's decision is judicial review, which the schools would have to apply for. If the judge overturns the decision, there has to be a fresh adjudication.
In 2003/4, several Herts partially selective schools sought judicial review of an adjudication that cut their proportion of selection to 25%. They won, and there was a second adjudication, cutting only Parmiter's, Rickmansworth and the WGs. Parmiter's and the WGs took that to a second judicial review, which was denied because there wasn't time for a third adjudication.
So the schools are certainly prepared to apply for judicial review if they believe they have a realistic chance. And one could certainly argue that given the ambiguity of the Code, ministerial statements from the time should be used in interpreting it.
In 2003/4, several Herts partially selective schools sought judicial review of an adjudication that cut their proportion of selection to 25%. They won, and there was a second adjudication, cutting only Parmiter's, Rickmansworth and the WGs. Parmiter's and the WGs took that to a second judicial review, which was denied because there wasn't time for a third adjudication.
So the schools are certainly prepared to apply for judicial review if they believe they have a realistic chance. And one could certainly argue that given the ambiguity of the Code, ministerial statements from the time should be used in interpreting it.
Checking the adjudicator's decision list for news, I noticed a decision upholding an objection to a sibling criterion at Addey and Stanhope School. The link to the decision is broken, but it's possible to guess what happened, and it seems to be relevant.
Some background: 4 years ago Addey and Stanhope School and three other schools in North Lewisham formed a sixth form consortium called Crossways Academy, which is now located on its own site about a mile from Addey and Stanhope. The four feeder schools work together with Crossways for maximum continuity across the 11-19 range.
The admissions arrangements for Addey and Stanhope include the clause
Adjudicators don't have to follow each other's rulings, but this gives an indication of how at least one of them interprets the Code.
Some background: 4 years ago Addey and Stanhope School and three other schools in North Lewisham formed a sixth form consortium called Crossways Academy, which is now located on its own site about a mile from Addey and Stanhope. The four feeder schools work together with Crossways for maximum continuity across the 11-19 range.
The admissions arrangements for Addey and Stanhope include the clause
So I assume that the inclusion of siblings who have moved on to Crossways was the subject of the objection, and has now been struck.siblings include those who were on the roll of Addey and Stanhope School and are on the roll of Crossways Academy at the closing date for applications and who are expected to be on the roll of Crossways Academy at the intended date of admission. The sibling definition relating to siblings at Crossways Academy may be subject to change.
Adjudicators don't have to follow each other's rulings, but this gives an indication of how at least one of them interprets the Code.
